Have to say this is disgusting - to kill an animal just to get a trophy.
http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/tourist-trophy-hunters-chase-african-wildlife/?hpt=hp_c2
It's one thing to kill for food or clothing. To kill a magnificent beast just so you can hang its head in your den is revolting to me.
Horrible pictures. Slaughtering animals for fun or for a trophy is disgusting.
My father's greatest hobby. Collected quite the inventory, including some of those African animals.
We (his children) never really agreed 100% with him, but his reasons were complex.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 31, 2012, 02:56:07 AM
It's one thing to kill for food or clothing. To kill a magnificent beast just so you can hang its head in your den is revolting to me.
I wouldn't do it or want to listen to someone's tales of daring do.
There is the argument that charging hunters big money gives the locals a reason to value the animals. It would need to at least be sustainable or coordinated with necessary culls required for wildlife management.
We've got some feral species, water buffalo would be the most obvious one which trophy hunters value, I don't think many people argue against that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 31, 2012, 04:31:46 AM
My father's greatest hobby. Collected quite the inventory, including some of those African animals.
We (his children) never really agreed 100% with him, but his reasons were complex.
Reasons, or justifications?
I'm going to repost an old topic (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8526.0) I started, because I'm terribly lazy at the moment to retype some of the basic arguments he gives to justify licensed hunting.
QuoteWhile I was growing up, my father liked hunting wild game for sport, everything from birds to antelope, basically anything that he could pay for.
Being the type with, for as long as I can remember, an intense interest in animals, I would at first try to convince him to stop doing this, but he always came up with arguments that I couldn't really refute. For one, the animals were kept in large private reserves, and that the income obtained from selling licenses would revert to the reserve. Endangered animals were obviously protected. With the money, new measures could be implemented to try to ward off poachers, a huge problem in huge reserves...they're the ones who cause the most harm.
Secondly, licenses were sold depending on the number of animals available. In some cases population control was necessary, since there were some animals who ultimately unbalance the ecosystems they're in. Between having to kill part of a population of one type of animal and controlled hunting, better to sell a hunting license.
He told me that he only hunted the old and sick animals and so put them out of their misery, but I don't believe him.
Thirdly, hunted animals were not left to rot (except for the carnivores, but vultures make short work of them) but instead sold as meat to either the hunter or the local population.
Basically those are his reasons. Feel absolutley free to pick them apart. :-\
When I shoot a pheasant or a pigeon, I'll often stick a feather in my hat. But I don't shoot them to get feathers. It's to eat the pheasant and to cull pigeons, which are vermin. And it's sport, too - I make no apologies for that. But I wouldn't shoot a non-vermin species just to display chunks of it.
Quote from: OldGit on July 31, 2012, 12:50:43 PM
When I shoot a pheasant or a pigeon, I'll often stick a feather in my hat. But I don't shoot them to get feathers. It's to eat the pheasant and to cull pigeons, which are vermin. And it's sport, too - I make no apologies for that. But I wouldn't shoot a non-vermin species just to display chunks of it.
Those are different reasons and justifiable, IMHO. It's one thing to add "sport" to a justifiable reason, another to use that as the sole justification. Again, just my opinion.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 31, 2012, 09:14:26 AM
I'm going to repost an old topic (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8526.0) I started, because I'm terribly lazy at the moment to retype some of the basic arguments he gives to justify licensed hunting.
QuoteWhile I was growing up, my father liked hunting wild game for sport, everything from birds to antelope, basically anything that he could pay for.
Being the type with, for as long as I can remember, an intense interest in animals, I would at first try to convince him to stop doing this, but he always came up with arguments that I couldn't really refute. For one, the animals were kept in large private reserves, and that the income obtained from selling licenses would revert to the reserve. Endangered animals were obviously protected. With the money, new measures could be implemented to try to ward off poachers, a huge problem in huge reserves...they're the ones who cause the most harm.
Secondly, licenses were sold depending on the number of animals available. In some cases population control was necessary, since there were some animals who ultimately unbalance the ecosystems they're in. Between having to kill part of a population of one type of animal and controlled hunting, better to sell a hunting license.
He told me that he only hunted the old and sick animals and so put them out of their misery, but I don't believe him.
Thirdly, hunted animals were not left to rot (except for the carnivores, but vultures make short work of them) but instead sold as meat to either the hunter or the local population.
Basically those are his reasons. Feel absolutley free to pick them apart. :-\
I don't like to attack other people's family members. I have some pretty questionable folks in my family tree, so other people's kin are off limits. In the abstract, if there is a legitimate reason for an animal kill, such as over-population, that's a different subject. But the one photo that I posted of the dead giraffe just broke my heart. No reason for that, other than human ego.
I am not against hunting, but hunting exclusively for trophies is one of the things I really don't agree with. I prefer to hunt food animals when I have the opportunity. If I am to participate in the hunt for other types of animals, there has to be a good conservation reason. Population control, for instance.
My grandfather owns some land where Grouse nest and my dad and I used to hunt there. There was some sport in it, but it was always about bringing some unusual and delicious meat home.
Quote from: BruceIt's one thing to add "sport" to a justifiable reason, another to use that as the sole justification.
I agree on the whole, though I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Certainly I take no pleasure in killing things which do no harm and don't taste good.
At the risk of being thought liberal, I will add that it's a quiet and relaxing pleasure to stroll round a farm with a gun under my arm, but it's a long time since I've let shooting considerations spoil the walk. I'm just as happy to come back with nothing, and it saves rodding the gun through. Some old habits stay strong - I am mortified if anyone sees or hears me before I know they're there, but that's just being a countryman.
Quote from: Tom62 on July 31, 2012, 04:18:44 AM
Horrible pictures. Slaughtering animals for fun or for a trophy is disgusting.
I can see what you are saying. But how would they die if left to 'natural causes' I.E. disease, starvation, thirst or hunted down and ripped apart as prey. Wild animals don't die in hospices; unfortunately. Almost all wild elephants that make it to maturity die of starvation after their third(?) set of teeth wear out. I think I'd take a quick shot to the head rather than get slower and slower until a pack of hyenas ripped my guts out while I could still feel it happening.
^ Right! In the UK the town councils trap loads of urban foxes. Instead of just killing them, they have to release them in the countryside, thanks to the animal-rights mob.. Thanks a lot, bunny-huggers. But anyhow these foxes don't know how to cope without dustbins to raid, they don't have territories and starve to death if they don't get killed in fights. How much better if they were put down painlessly in the trap - but oh, no! That's barbaric.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 31, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
I don't like to attack other people's family members. I have some pretty questionable folks in my family tree, so other people's kin are off limits. In the abstract, if there is a legitimate reason for an animal kill, such as over-population, that's a different subject. But the one photo that I posted of the dead giraffe just broke my heart. No reason for that, other than human ego.
There are few reasons for many of the animals there. One thing at least that my father never did was hunt a carnivore such as a lion because they're uneatable, just trophy animals. Last time I checked, lion populations were actually starting to dwindle rather than grow out of control, so it's likely that they were killed just to be stuffed and displayed in some big guy with a gun's (read: hunter or warrior status or whatever) trophy room. Which is sad.
It's not the case for the elephant population though. People have been protecting them for years, and now due to their large numbers they endanger other animals because young males (especially) vandalise trees by ripping them off the ground. For a while they would pay lots of money to transfer the elephants to other reserves, but that just transferred the problem. In that case there are solid population control reasons there, even if people take only their ivory.
As a small child I used to love going "hunting" with my air rifle and shoot birds, but I grew out of that.
I don't see what is so "brave" or skillful to shoot an animal. Target shooting requires similar shooting skills, photography requires similar stalking skills.
If a person really wants to test themselves against nature they ought to go bush for a few months and see if they can survive. Guns seems like cheating, Maybe just a small knife, the clothes on their backs and that's it, see what they can make of it. Might need to run or climb a tree when the lions, tigers, elephants, hippos are near though.
Quote from: Stevil on July 31, 2012, 08:05:47 PM
As a small child I used to love going "hunting" with my air rifle and shoot birds, but I grew out of that.
I don't see what is so "brave" or skillful to shoot an animal. Target shooting requires similar shooting skills, photography requires similar stalking skills.
If a person really wants to test themselves against nature they ought to go bush for a few months and see if they can survive. Guns seems like cheating, Maybe just a small knife, the clothes on their backs and that's it, see what they can make of it. Might need to run or climb a tree when the lions, tigers, elephants, hippos are near though.
Me too, we all had our air guns and the best idea for spending some family time with my father was going on one of his hunts.
Couldn't agree more. Hunting an animal while putting it at such a disadvantage doesn't exactly help with the status some of them are looking for. Maybe just among their buddies of similar disposition...
Those pictures are amazing.
Quote from: OldGit on July 31, 2012, 02:50:37 PM
^ Right! In the UK the town councils trap loads of urban foxes. Instead of just killing them, they have to release them in the countryside, thanks to the animal-rights mob.. Thanks a lot, bunny-huggers. But anyhow these foxes don't know how to cope without dustbins to raid, they don't have territories and starve to death if they don't get killed in fights. How much better if they were put down painlessly in the trap - but oh, no! That's barbaric.
The "animal rights" types that liberate lab animals show the same appalling ignorance of the animals that the "free". Oh well, I suppose that the local predators have a field day with the sudden if temporary increase in prey.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on August 02, 2012, 07:21:29 AM
Quote from: OldGit on July 31, 2012, 02:50:37 PM
^ Right! In the UK the town councils trap loads of urban foxes. Instead of just killing them, they have to release them in the countryside, thanks to the animal-rights mob.. Thanks a lot, bunny-huggers. But anyhow these foxes don't know how to cope without dustbins to raid, they don't have territories and starve to death if they don't get killed in fights. How much better if they were put down painlessly in the trap - but oh, no! That's barbaric.
The "animal rights" types that liberate lab animals show the same appalling ignorance of the animals that the "free". Oh well, I suppose that the local predators have a field day with the sudden if temporary increase in prey.
Legislation surrounding the use of lab animals is actually better than most in the general population would expect it seems, in Brazil. I was actually a bit surprised with that. You can't, at least, use lab animals indiscriminately. It evolved a bit since I would have to sit through fish, bird and mammal dissections in
High School which is pointless.
Also, it makes all the sense in the world to think that lab animals are well treated, because an unhealthy animal sort of defeats the purpose.
So, I'll chime in here with my opinion. I have no trouble with people who hunt to feed their family and or use the meat. I have no trouble with culling herds that might otherwise starve to death due to over population or culling animals that are invasive to the area harming indigenous animal populations. (We have programs in my county that cull overpopulated deer herds and either eat the meat themselves or donate it to homeless organizations.)
I have a lot of trouble with people who go out and kill something for the fun of it. I have trouble with people who kill an animal and then dance and hoot and holler and high five each other that they killed something for the fun of it or to stick its corpse on the wall to admire their "accomplishment". This is doubly so with canned hunts, where the animal doesn't have a fair chance to escape.
I've often asked hunters, and I'll ask you all here as well...when you are without a gun or weapon (could be a bow and arrow too) and see a deer or other sort of animal, do you admire the animal's beauty? Or wish you had a weapon to kill it? I posed this to a friend who is a deer hunter and he said basically all he thinks about is killing it.
What's your take on this?
Only in Skyrim. :D
I used to only hunt birds and smaller animals when I was young, in organised hunting outings with my father and his friends, but I don't look at birds these days and want to kill them. I don't need to. If I did, I would. There certainly isn't a lack of opportunity in a city full of pigeons that can be seen as and can frequently are called vermin. ::)
I don't see any of the "honour" or "hunter's glory" that trophy hunters boast about when they kill a large and potentially dangerous animal from a safe distance with a sophisticated killing weapon that they can't even take the credit for inventing.
Quote from: Beachdragon on August 02, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
So, I'll chime in here with my opinion. I have no trouble with people who hunt to feed their family and or use the meat. I have no trouble with culling herds that might otherwise starve to death due to over population or culling animals that are invasive to the area harming indigenous animal populations. (We have programs in my county that cull overpopulated deer herds and either eat the meat themselves or donate it to homeless organizations.)
I have a lot of trouble with people who go out and kill something for the fun of it. I have trouble with people who kill an animal and then dance and hoot and holler and high five each other that they killed something for the fun of it or to stick its corpse on the wall to admire their "accomplishment". This is doubly so with canned hunts, where the animal doesn't have a fair chance to escape.
I've often asked hunters, and I'll ask you all here as well...when you are without a gun or weapon (could be a bow and arrow too) and see a deer or other sort of animal, do you admire the animal's beauty? Or wish you had a weapon to kill it? I posed this to a friend who is a deer hunter and he said basically all he thinks about is killing it.
What's your take on this?
Rub 'em out. They're bad role models, disporting themselves as they do shamelessly in the buff, hopeless conversationalists , plus some of them bite.
Quote from: Beachdragon on August 02, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
I've often asked hunters, and I'll ask you all here as well...when you are without a gun or weapon (could be a bow and arrow too) and see a deer or other sort of animal, do you admire the animal's beauty? Or wish you had a weapon to kill it? I posed this to a friend who is a deer hunter and he said basically all he thinks about is killing it.
What's your take on this?
When I was young I would walk around the orchard shooting birds. It was exciting, I suppose I got an adrenaline hit.
Later on a person suggested I should feed the birds rather than shoot them.
I thought that seemed silly, no adrenaline there. Only pansies feed the birds.
But with maturity I know cringe about that. Feeding and admiring birds is awesome, shooting them is needless, our environment is to be admired and respected not shat on.
Quote from: StevilFeeding and admiring birds is awesome, shooting them is needless...
I believe I've said this before on HAF: Go into a flock of sheep at lambing time. See a new-born lamb dying in agony because a crow has pecked out its entrails through its anus, while the ewe is still helpless. After that you'll shoot any crow you see.
I have an odd respect for crows, they're really smart birds. Nature is cruel, and if an animal has the opportunity to feed on the weak or easy prey, it will. Struggle for existence.
But that's when they become vermin however and in the struggle of priorities they loose when they cause financial loss to the shepard, unfortunately.
(no, I have never seen a lamb dying because a crow pecked it and I think that if I had a herd of sheep I would think about clearing the place of crows too, but probably through trained dogs or hawks, like the ones that remove birds from airport strips before planes take off. Trying to go after them yourself can be very tiring.)
Quote from: OldGit on August 03, 2012, 10:03:09 AM
I believe I've said this before on HAF: Go into a flock of sheep at lambing time. See a new-born lamb dying in agony because a crow has pecked out its entrails through its anus, while the ewe is still helpless. After that you'll shoot any crow you see.
The crow was feeding because it was hungry and wanted to live.
Some people kill because it is a thrill. They think it is fun and funny.
Was the crow sitting back and laughing? was it jumping up and down, smearing blood on itself and asking people to take a photo?
I don't think the entire crow race should be decimated because of the actions of one crow. However, I totally understand your feelings here. I wouldn't want to see an animal suffer like that. (I don't eat lamb, veal or goat anymore. They are so adorable and it just seems so unfair to eat a baby.)
At least the crow did it for survival and not for kicks.
Quote from: OldGit on August 03, 2012, 10:03:09 AM
Quote from: StevilFeeding and admiring birds is awesome, shooting them is needless...
I believe I've said this before on HAF: Go into a flock of sheep at lambing time. See a new-born lamb dying in agony because a crow has pecked out its entrails through its anus, while the ewe is still helpless. After that you'll shoot any crow you see.
That's easy to prevent, shoot a crow just before the beginning of the lambing season, cut it up and place the pieces around the area designated for the lambing. But make sure the crows see you do it they wont come anywhere near the location.
Quote from: BeachdragonI don't think the entire crow race should be decimated because of the actions of one crow.
One? This happens regularly every year. But my wider point is that they're vermin and need keeping down.
Quote from: OldGit on August 03, 2012, 04:29:35 PM
Quote from: BeachdragonI don't think the entire crow race should be decimated because of the actions of one crow.
One? This happens regularly every year. But my wider point is that they're vermin and need keeping down.
The difference between crows and rats is that crows are actually quite easy to control without resorting to culling them on mass, they are intelligent enough whilst being stupid enough that we can easily take advantage of them without much effort, a scarecrow should be enough to keep them away as well if time is spent initially to create the link between it being dangerous. The reason they are so successful as a species is because they have been able to profit from our mess as well as being highly efficient without it, they aren't really vermin just a good example of natural selection, like us.
Would a scarecrow work? ??? Pretty soon I'm sure the crows will figure out that it's just a set up danger situation.
Generally people don't seem to see birds as pests, but they can be really damaging. There was this one sunflower farm that would go after hunters every year just before harvesting the seeds to shoot birds. The birds that would eat the unsuffering seeds have no way of knowing what they're doing of course, or any reason to even care if they could, but they started messing with people's money.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 03, 2012, 07:27:18 PM
Would a scarecrow work? ??? Pretty soon I'm sure the crows will figure out that it's just a set up danger situation.
A scarecrow is dressed in the clothes of the farmer when he shoots crows. If you don't then its a total waste of time and defeats the purpose.
Fittingly, Crow seems to know a lot about crows. :D
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 03, 2012, 08:48:27 PM
Fittingly, Crow seems to know a lot about crows. :D
Hahaha, my grandad use to try and cultivate rare birds, as he provided the perfect environment the crows were attracted and would rip them to shreds and eat all the food. As soon as he started using old farming techniques they stayed well away.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on August 03, 2012, 08:48:27 PM
Fittingly, Crow seems to know a lot about crows. :D
Equally you are pretty knowledgeable about DeterminedJuliets.